alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Part 2, Section V: USSGL Crosswalks to Standard

External Reports

This section includes crosswalks for use in Fiscal Year 2020 GTAS Reporting. These crosswalks map

USSGL accounts to external reports in accordance with current reporting guidance from the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB), the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), and the

Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service).

Each report crosswalk lists the proper USSGL accounts and applicable attributes for each line and/or

column on the reports. Attributes identify information subsidiary to the basic 6-digit USSGL accounts. This

subsidiary information is necessary to meet external reporting requirements. See Section IV for additional

information on attributes.

All crosswalks require pre-closing USSGL account balances.

The following are crosswalks from the USSGL Chart of Accounts to standard external reports required by

OMB and Fiscal Service: 

Section V Page Number

Balance Sheet (BS) V BS - 1

Statement of Net Cost (SNC) V SNC - 1

Statement of Changes in Net Position (SCNP) V SCNP - 1

Statement of Custodial Activity (SCA) V SCA - 1

Statement of Budgetary Resources (SBR) V SBR - 1

SF 133 and Schedule P: Report on Budget Execution

and Budgetary Resources and Budget Program and

Financing Schedule

V SF 133/Sch P - 1 

 

 

Page 1 of 1
No. 52562.

protests 53245-K, etc. (Baltimore, etc.).

#### Continental Ceramics Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**EXHIBIT 31(i)****CERTIFICATION**I, Patrick A. McGeeney, CEO do hereby certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report onForm 10-KSB ofLocal Telecom Systems, Inc.     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to statea material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annualreport;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this annual report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,and for, the periods presented in this annual report.     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-14 and15d-14) for theregistrant and have:          a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to    ensure that material information relating to the registrant,    including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by    others within those entities, particularly during the period in    which this annual report is being prepared;           b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s    disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within    90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the    “Evaluation Date”); and           c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about    the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures    based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date:     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and Ihave disclosed, base on our most recent evaluation, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):          a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation    of internal controls which could adversely affect the    registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and    report financial data and have identified for the    registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal    controls; and           b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves    management or other employees who have a significant role in    the registrant’s internal controls; and     6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and Ihave indicated in this annual report whether there weresignificant changes in internal controls or in other factorsthat could significantly affect internal controls subsequent tothe date of our most recent evaluation, including any correctiveactions with regard to significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses.
Date   March 7, 2006              /s/ Patrick A. McGeeney       Patrick A. McGeeney, Chief     Executive Officer
No. 61311.

protests 219097-K, etc. (New York).

#### “21” Brands, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Download User Profiles

To download user profiles, complete the following steps:

1. From the Administration tab, select User Administration>Download Users. The Step 1 

of 3: Select OTCnet Endpoint(s) page appears.

2. Select the OTC Endpoint(s) where you want to download the user profile(s) to the OTCnet 

Offline Check Capture application. 

3. Click Next. The Download Users dialog box appears.

4. Click Close. The Step 2 of 3: Select User(s) page appears.

5. Select the user profile(s) that you want to download to the OTCnet Offline Check Capture 

application as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Step 2 of 3: Select Users

6. Click Next. The Step 3 of 3: Review Users page appears.

7. Verify the user profiles for the selected OTC Endpoints that should be downloaded to the 

local offline database. Click Submit. The Confirmation page appears presenting the user 

profiles for the OTC Endpoints that have been successfully downloaded to the local offline 

database, along with the users’ temporary passwords, used to access OTCnet Offline.

• Communicate the User IDs and temporary passwords to the appropriate users. 

• The User ID is the same one you use to access OTCnet Online. 

• If the Check Capture Administrator forgets to record the temporary password, 

he/she may reset the user profile’s password for another temporary password.

Click Return Home to the OTCnet Home Page.

Application Tips

Additional Button
Before the Second Division,

February 14, 1945

No. 50017.

#### Protests 718611-G, etc., of M. S. Levy & Sons et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the-court dismissed the protests.
I N THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
N OT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
F ELIX J. MELENDEZ , A ppellant ,
v. Case No

. 5D 22

- 2796 LT Cas e No. 2019- DR

- 013840

CAROLIN E MELENDEZ ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Opinion filed May 16 , 2 023 Nonfinal A ppeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Brevard County , Jigisa P atel

- Dookhoo , Judge. Keith M cCarter, o f McCarter L aw Offices , P.A., Tampa , for Appellant. David Diaz, of Diaz Fa mily L aw Firm, P.A., Mount D ora, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM

. Appellant, Felix J. Melendez, appeals numerous orders entered by the trial c ourt subsequently to t he f inal judgment dissolving the m arriage of the parties.2 W e affirm the order denying Appellant’s motion for contempt and the separate order tempor arily susp ending Appellant’s time

- sharing with the parties’ three minor children on the authority of Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee , 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979). As to the remaining orders, w e dismiss for lack of jurisdiction . The orders we re either (1) rendered more than thirty days before the notice of appeal was filed or (2) not appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130

. Lastly, even if we treat the appeal of these remaining orders as a petition seeking certiorari relief, 1 no irreparable harm has been shown

. AFFIRMED, in part; DISMISSED, in part.
L AMBERT, C.J., EDWARDS and SOUD , JJ., concur.

1 See Fla. R. App. P. 9.040( c ).
From: Wade, Dennis@ARB

To: Ungvarsky, John

Cc: Kalandiyur, Nesamani@ARB ; Scheffelin, Thomas@ARB ; Tasat, Webster@ARB

Subject: SJV EMFAC2014 for EPA 2015 FSTIP Emissions - Summary.xlsx

Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 4:56:28 PM

Attachments: SJV EMFAC2014 for EPA 2015 FSTIP Emissions - Summary.xlsx

John,

As you requested, the attached spreadsheet contains a summary of EMFAC2014 output for the

SJV for the years and seasons of the submitted budget revisions.

Give me a call if you have any questions.

Dennis
No. 47327.

#### Protest 32894-K of Seaboard Lumber Sales, Ltd. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed on the basis of the condition in which imported and that no addition should have been made for planing, or tonguing and grooving. Protest sustained to this extent.
Case No. 13,732.

#### TALBOTT v. HARTLEY.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 31.] *1*

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

July Term, 1801.

Award — Not Conclusive— Action after Deli very.

1. An award is void which is not final and conclusive, and does not embrace all the matter submitted, and settle the dispute.

2. After delivering their award, the arbitrators cannot again act upon the case without new authority.

Assumpsit for the labor of two negro boys, Bill and Hanson. Bowling, the owner of the boys, had by indenture bound them as apprentices to the plaintiff. Bill was to serve until September, 1798, and Hanson until September, 1799. Talbott hired the boys to Hartley, the defendant, who refused to pay him for their labor, alleging that Bowling claimed it. Upon this, Talbott and Bowling submitted the matter to arbitrators.

The’submission was in these words: “All our disputes, differences, controversies, &c. concerning two apprentices with said Levi Talbott.”

The award was in these words: “We the arbitrators between -Robert Bowling and Levi Talbott, do agree that the said negro boy, named Bill, is free from L. Talbott the 13th December, 1797, and likewise the negro boy, named Hanson, is free from Levi Talbott the 31st day of January, 1798. (Signed) Joseph Coleman. Archibald McClish.”

It was proved that this award was signed by both arbitrators, who agreed that the original should remain with Coleman, who should give out copies to the parties; and that Coleman did deliver such copies. After-wards the arbitrators met again and made a different award.

THE COURT

decided that the first award was void, because it was not final and conclusive, and did not embrace all the objects submitted. It did not settle the dispute. It did not award a release of the covenants, nor a cancelling of the indentures. And that the second award was also void, because the authority of the arbitrators was spent in making the first award.
No. 52560.

protests 663306-G, etc. (Honolulu, etc.).

#### James E. Markham, Alien Property Custodian v. United States

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Eollowing the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 52565.

protests 132980-K, etc. (New York).

#### J. S. Hoffman Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Certain items of the merchandise stipulated to consist of cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706), Abstract 42146, and Abstract 48269 were held subject to an allowance for tare of inedible coverings of *2%*percent from the net weight reported by the United States Weigher.
# sec5_sbr_2021

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2022-04	&"Arial,Bold"&10V SBR - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BDecember 2021
**EXHIBIT 31(ii)****CERTIFICATION**I, Richard M. Hewitt, CFO do hereby certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report onForm 10-KSB ofLocal Telecom Systems, Inc.     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to statea material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annualreport;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this annual report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this annual report.     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-14 and15d-14) for theregistrant and have:          a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to    ensure that material information relating to the registrant,    including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by    others within those entities, particularly during the period in    which this annual report is being prepared;           b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s    disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within    90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the    “Evaluation Date”); and           c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about    the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures    based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date:     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and Ihave disclosed, base on our most recent evaluation, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):          a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation    of internal controls which could adversely affect the    registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and    report financial data and have identified for the    registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal    controls; and           b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves    management or other employees who have a significant role in    the registrant’s internal controls; and     6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and Ihave indicated in this annual report whether there weresignificant changes in internal controls or in other factorsthat could significantly affect internal controls subsequent tothe date of our most recent evaluation, including any correctiveactions with regard to significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses.
Date: March 7, 2006              /s/ Richard M. Hewitt       Richard M. Hewitt,     Chief Financial Officer
Case 2:05-cv-05523-JP Document 11 Filed 05/11/06 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-05523-JP Document 11 Filed 05/11/06 Page 2 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-05523-JP Document 11 Filed 05/11/06 Page 3 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-05523-JP Document 11 Filed 05/11/06 Page 4 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-05523-JP Document 11 Filed 05/11/06 Page 5 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-05523-JP Document 11 Filed 05/11/06 Page 6 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-05523-JP Document 11 Filed 05/11/06 Page 7 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-05523-JP Document 11 Filed 05/11/06 Page 8 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-05523-JP Document 11 Filed 05/11/06 Page 9 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-05523-JP Document 11 Filed 05/11/06 Page 10 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-05523-JP Document 11 Filed 05/11/06 Page 11 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD WILSON,

NO. CIV. S-04-633 LKK/CMK

Plaintiff,

O R D E R

v.

 

PIER 1 IMPORTS (US), INC;

and MELLON/PIER 1 PROPERTIES

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP I,

Defendants.

 /

The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment on the issue of damages in the above-captioned case.

Plaintiff argues that because the court has granted summary

judgment for him on seven of eleven alleged barriers, it is

appropriate to award him damages at this point, leaving only the

issue of injunctive relief for trial. He requests that the court

award him $64,000 in statutory damages. 

////

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-00633-LKK -CMK Document 120 Filed 05/10/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

No good cause having been shown, and because the court has

ordered supplemental briefing on the issues raised in Wilson,

plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 9, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-00633-LKK -CMK Document 120 Filed 05/10/06 Page 2 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD SPENCER MAZZAFERRO,

Creditor

- Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM PARISI,

Debtor

- Appellee. No. 15

- 15988

D.C. No. 3:14

- cv

- 01707

- JST

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2017 **

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Ronald Spencer Mazzaferro appeals pro se fro m the district court’s order

denying his motion for rehearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§§ 158(d) and 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision on appeal

from the bankruptcy court and apply the same standard of review applied by t he

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant’s

request for oral argument

, set forth in his motion to consolidate

, is denied. 

# FILED

MAR 27 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 15988

district court. In re AFI Holding, Inc. , 525 F.3d 700, 702 (9th Cir. 2008). We

affirm.

The district court denied Mazzafaro’s motion for rehearing of its order

affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing Mazzaferro’s involuntary

petition against William Parisi. In his opening brief, Mazzaferro fail s to address

how the district court erred. As a result, he ha s waived his appeal of the district

court’s order. See Smith v. Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1 052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n

appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”);

Greenwood v. FAA , 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues

which are argued specifically and distinctly in the opening br ief.” ).

W e reject as without merit Mazzaferro’s contentions that the bankruptcy

court and the district court violated due process.

To the extent that Mazzaferro challenges the district court’s order denying

his motion to unseal, the district court did not err in denying the request because

Mazzaferro did not seek relief from the bankruptcy court in the first instance but

presented the request for the first time on appeal to the district court

.

To the extent that Mazzaferro seeks an order from this court direct ing the

bankruptcy court and district court to unseal judicial records, the request is denied.

All pending motions are denied

.

AFFIRMED.
Order entered October 2 9 , 2018

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 00768

- CV

NOBLE ANESTHESIA PAR TNERS, PLLC, Appellant

V.

U.S. ANESTHESIA PART NERS, INC. , ET AL., A ppellee s

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 17

- 09602



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellees’ October 25, 2018 unopposed motion for extension to file

briefs

. Because this is an accelerated appeal, w e GRANT the motion to the extent we ORDER

the brief s be filed no later than November 27, 2018. We caution that further extension requests

will be disfavored.

/s/ ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
Case No. 9,016.

#### MANDEVILLE v. RUMNEY.

[3 Cranch, C. C. 424.]1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term, 1829.

Notes — Days or Grace — Protest—Suit Brought.

If Sunday be the last day of grace, the demand, protest, and notice may be on Saturday, and if the protest be after bank hours on Saturday, the suit may be brought the same evening.

Debt, against the maker of a promissory note. Sunday was the third day of grace, payment was demanded, and the note protested on Saturday after bank hours. The suit was brought the same evening, after protest.

Verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court whether the suit was not brought too soon.

THE COURT

(MORSELL, Circuit Judge, doubting),

was of opinion, that it was not. See Story, Chit. Bills, and the- cases cited there in the notes.

THE COURT was of the same opinion, in the action of the same plaintiff against Run-els, the indorser of the same note.
**Part 2, Section VI: USSGL Crosswalks to Reclassified Statements**

This section includes crosswalks for use in Fiscal Year 2020 GTAS Reporting. These crosswalks map USSGL accounts to external reports in accordance with TFM Volume I, Part 2, Chapter 4700, Federal Entity Reporting Requirements for the *Financial Report of the United States Government.*Each report crosswalk lists the proper USSGL accounts and applicable attributes for each line and/or column on the reports. Attributes identify information subsidiary to the basic 6-digit USSGL accounts. This subsidiary information is necessary to meet external reporting requirements. See Section IV for additional information on attributes.

The following are crosswalks from the USSGL Chart of Accounts to standard external reports required by Fiscal Service:

Page 1 of 1

# image1.png